563 So. 2d 194 - Messina v. State

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant challenges his sentence on several grounds. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

¶2Appellant’s second issue, involving the sentence which might be imposed if appellant were to violate the conditions of his probation, is not ripe for adjudication, and is therefore disregarded.

¶3As to appellant’s challenge of the legality of the “probationary split sentence” imposed, we find that we are bound by Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1988).

¶4With regard to appellant’s last issue, notwithstanding recent federal decisions,1 we find that the trial court reversibly erred by imposing court costs on an indigent defendant without giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard, Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984); Clark v. State, 560 So.2d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Adair v. State, 558 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

¶5The sentence is AFFIRMED, but the imposition of costs is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur. BARFIELD, J., concurs with written opinion.

¶6. See e.g., United, States v. Cooper, 870 F.2d 586 (llth Cir.1989).

BARFIELD, Judge,

¶7concurring:

¶8I concur in the majority opinion, but I think we should continue to certify to the Florida Supreme Court, as a matter of great public importance, the following question:

Will the court reconsider the validity of the probationary split sentence authorized in Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988), which has the effect of permitting more than one sentence for the same offense, in light of the fact that the legislature has not authorized that disposition in the sentencing alternatives of section 921.187, Florida Statutes?